Murray scores AGAIN for Reading ... number 5

[goldstone]

Did I hear a couple of people on here ask why WE didn't get him on loan? Sounds like a sensible enough question .... and one to which it would be interesting to hear an answer from the club.

 

[carteater]

here's a thought: maybe he may not have wanted to come back here?

 

[Springal]

Or Palace had no intention of letting him go here?

 

[Icy Gull]

here's a thought: maybe he may not have wanted to come back here?

Here's another thought, he is WAY better than anyone we have got and we can't afford quality strikers. It's that old FFP chestnut ......probably.

 

[dazzer6666]

Even Obika scored yesterday.......

 

[Superphil]

Wages

 

[Prince Monolulu]

Zamora and Murray up front, Mullers as manager, all we need is Penney back on the flank and it's complete. Look forward FFS.

 

[Tony Meolas Loan Spell]

Im sure we could have struck a deal after all most of the time time the loaning club pays the wages or the majority Bridge, Ward etc.

Gotta be honest the biggest mistake of the amex eras are letting him go then not getting him back.

 

[Acker79]

Im sure we could have struck a deal after all most of the time time the loaning club pays the wages or the majority Bridge, Ward etc.

Gotta be honest the biggest mistake of the amex eras are letting him go then not getting him back.

Last season Southampton refused to loan Billy Sharp out unless the team that took him was willing to pay all of his wages. I was watching sunday supplement this morning and they mentioned one Palace player that went out on loan (I didn't catch which one) cost a six figure fee to take on loan. There is an effort from loaning clubs to pay less of the wages, we lucked out with Bridge (or perhaps it was great bargaining by whoever was head of player recruitment at the time), but loan players aren't necessarily that much cheaper than buying players, expecially in the FFP era where clubs don't want a player on their wage bill if he is playing for another team.

 

[GingerBeerMan]

Last season Southampton refused to loan Billy Sharp out unless the team that took him was willing to pay all of his wages. I was watching sunday supplement this morning and they mentioned one Palace player that went out on loan (I didn't catch which one) cost a six figure fee to take on loan. There is an effort from loaning clubs to pay less of the wages, we lucked out with Bridge (or perhaps it was great bargaining by whoever was head of player recruitment at the time), but loan players aren't necessarily that much cheaper than buying players, expecially in the FFP era where clubs don't want a player on their wage bill if he is playing for another team.

On the other hand if we'd taken agustien/Harley/Toko on loan we wouldn't have had to pay their whole contracts when we realised they were shit. It can work both ways (as we see with Gardener).

 

[Guy Fawkes]

On the other hand if we'd taken agustien/Harley/Toko on loan we wouldn't have had to pay their whole contracts when we realised they were shit. It can work both ways (as we see with Gardener).

So should we have taken the likes of Ulloa, Buckley, etc on loan in case they didn't work out?

That way, if they did well on loan here, the selling club can increase their transfer fee demand and other clubs can hijack the move.

All transfers are a gamble, some work and some don't

 

[mona]

Even Obika scored yesterday.......

Yeah but NSC decided that he was shi*. So he obviously was.

 

[Lady Whistledown]

Did I hear a couple of people on here ask why WE didn't get him on loan? Sounds like a sensible enough question .... and one to which it would be interesting to hear an answer from the club.

Would you mind just checking for us how many games Reading have won in that period? Cheers.

 

[Lady Whistledown]

Im sure we could have struck a deal after all most of the time time the loaning club pays the wages or the majority Bridge, Ward etc.

Gotta be honest the biggest mistake of the amex eras are letting him go then not getting him back.

I can perfectly well grasp why City or the other top clubs would pay a proportion of the wages of a loan player, for the sake of getting him out playing games.

I'm less convinced that a smaller club like Palace would cheerfully pay part of Glenn Murray's £22k (reported) per week, simply so that he can get a few games for the Albion, not least when a club like Reading are waiting in the wings, offering to pay the full amount thanks to their Premier League Relegation Reward Windfall.

 

[BensGrandad]

Was it not reported in the press that we were in talks about him but our valuation and that of CPFC were miles apart ? Then somebody, supposedly ITK, said on here that he would never come back all the time TB was chairman, which in effect is likely to be never, as I am sure TB will be chairman longer than GM is a player.

 

[chaileyjem]

Why do we only ever want (new/old) players who have played for us before ?

 

[Vegas Seagull]

Was it not reported in the press that we were in talks about him but our valuation and that of CPFC were miles apart ? Then somebody, supposedly ITK, said on here that he would never come back all the time TB was chairman, which in effect is likely to be never, as I am sure TB will be chairman longer than GM is a player.

He wanted out every summer, which is what TB and I remember, gets far too easy a ride on here

 

[Albion Dan]

Why do we only ever want (new/old) players who have played for us before ?

Because the ones we've signed recently who aren't ex players have been utter gash?

 

[chaileyjem]

Because the ones we've signed recently who aren't ex players have been utter gash?

Every signing in recent years apart from Crofts and Hammond hasn't worked out ?

 

[brightn'ove]

Why do we only ever want (new/old) players who have played for us before ?

I think in this case it doesn't matter that he is an ex Albion player. He was an available (on loan) proven championship striker who possesses a multitude of skills that our current strike force do not. We missed out. Again.